The Supreme Court has allowed the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform’s appeal and ordered Robert Francis Stapleton’s surrender to the United Kingdom under a European Arrest Warrant. The court held that the High Court was wrong to refuse surrender because of the time elapsed since the alleged offences. It did not decide whether Stapleton could obtain a stay of any trial in England; it said that issue could be argued before the English courts.
The warrant, issued at Bow Street Magistrates’ Court in London on 20 July 2005, concerns 30 alleged fraud offences said to have occurred between 1978 and 1982. The warrant alleges that Stapleton, then chairman of two companies that made and supplied fold-away squash courts, obtained more than £3 million through false export documents and bank advances. Stapleton denies the allegations.
The High Court refused surrender in February 2006, finding under section 37 of the European Arrest Warrant Act 2003 that surrender would breach Stapleton’s constitutional rights because of the delay. The Minister appealed that decision. In the Supreme Court, Justice Fennelly said Irish courts should generally proceed on the assumption that courts in the issuing state will respect fundamental rights. Differences between Irish and English criminal procedure, on their own, did not establish that surrender would deny a fair trial.
The judgment said English courts had procedures through which Stapleton could seek a remedy based on the passage of time. It considered those courts better placed to assess available evidence and the issues likely to arise at trial. The Supreme Court therefore concluded that delay was not a ground to refuse surrender in this case.
Justice Fennelly also addressed the history of Stapleton’s residence and the delay. He said the police first learned in 2001 that Stapleton was living in Ireland, after he had lived in Spain from 1985 and moved to Ireland in 1994. The judgment described Stapleton as responsible for the delay from 1985 to 2001, citing his failure to return to the UK to answer earlier, separate VAT-related charges. It said the later steps taken by UK authorities were each reasonable, while acknowledging that their overall pace could be criticised. The court said it was not strictly necessary to decide the effect of Stapleton’s contribution to the delay, but treated it as an additional reason to reject his argument.
A separate challenge to the constitutionality of the Criminal Justice (Terrorist Offences) Act 2005 had been dismissed by the High Court and was not argued on appeal. The Supreme Court left that issue outstanding and said counsel should be heard about how it should be dealt with.